Rwanda has made significant advancements in medical and economic development over the last 20 years and has emerged as a leader in healthcare in the East African region. The COVID-19 pandemic, which reached Rwanda in March 2020, presented new and unique challenges for infectious disease control. The objective of this paper is to characterize Rwanda’s domestic response to the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight effective strategies so that other countries, including high and middle-income countries, can learn from its innovative initiatives. Government publications describing Rwanda’s healthcare capacity were first consulted to obtain the country’s baseline context. Next, official government and healthcare system communications, including case counts, prevention and screening protocols, treatment facility practices, and behavioral guidelines for the public, were read thoroughly to understand the course of the pandemic in Rwanda and the specific measures in the response. As of 31 December 2020, Rwanda has recorded 8,383 cumulative COVID-19 cases, 6,542 recoveries, and 92 deaths since the first case on 14 March 2020. The Ministry of Health, Rwanda Biomedical Centre, and the Epidemic and Surveillance Response division have collaborated on preparative measures since the pandemic began in January 2020. The formation of a Joint Task Force in early March led to the Coronavirus National Preparedness and Response Plan, an extensive six-month plan that established a national incident management system and detailed four phases of a comprehensive national response. Notable strategies have included disseminating public information through drones, robots for screening and inpatient care, and official communications through social media platforms to combat misinformation and mobilize a cohesive response from the population. Rwanda’s government and healthcare system has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic with innovative interventions to prevent and contain the virus. Importantly, the response has utilized adaptive and innovative technology and robust risk communication and community engagement to deliver an effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global problem that results in high morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials is a major driver of AMR. This study aimed to evaluate the rate and quality of antimicrobial prescription and use at the University Teaching Hospital of Kigali (CHUK), a tertiary-referral teaching hospital. Methodology: A point prevalence survey (PPS) of antimicrobial prescription was conducted using the Global PPS tool, including a healthcare-acquired infection (HAI) module. Results: On the day of the PPS, 39.3% (145/369) of inpatients were prescribed at least one antimicrobial. Out of the 259 prescribed antimicrobials, 232 (89.6%) were antibacterials, of which 151 (65.1%) belonged to the watch group of the WHO AWaRe classification. The top three antibiotics prescribed were cefotaxime (87; 37.5%), parenteral metronidazole (31; 13.4%), and meropenem (23; 9.9%). Stop or review dates for the prescribed antimicrobials were documented in 27/259 prescriptions (10.4%). Surgical prophylaxis (SP) was prescribed for longer than one day in 83.3% of 61 patients. Samples for culture were sent for 27.1% (63/232) of all the patients prescribed antibiotics. Conclusion: This PPS demonstrates multiple indicators of the poor use of antimicrobials, including the high prevalence usage of watch antibiotics and prolonged surgical prophylaxis and other poor-quality indicators. Thus, there is an urgent need for intervention to improve antimicrobial stewardship.

Introduction: While trauma prognostication and triage scores have been designed for use in lower-resourced healthcare settings specifically, the comparative clinical performance between trauma-specific and general triage scores for risk-stratifying injured patients in such settings is not well understood. This study evaluated the Kampala Trauma Score (KTS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Triage Early Warning Score (TEWS) for accuracy in predicting mortality among injured patients seeking emergency department (ED) care at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Kigali (CHUK) in Rwanda.Methods: A retrospective, randomly sampled cohort of ED patients presenting with injury was accrued from August 2015–July 2016. Primary outcome was 14-day mortality and secondary outcome was overall facility-based mortality. We evaluated summary statistics of the cohort. Bootstrap regression models were used to compare areas under receiver operating curves (AUC) with associated 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Among 617 cases, the median age was 32 years and 73.5% were male. The most frequent mechanism of injury was road traffic incident (56.2%). Predominant anatomical regions of injury were craniofacial (39.3%) and lower extremities (38.7%), and the most common injury types were fracture (46.0%) and contusion (12.0%). Fourteen-day mortality was 2.6% and overall facility-based mortality was 3.4%. For 14-day mortality, TEWS had the highest accuracy (AUC = 0.88, 95% CI, 0.76–1.00), followed by RTS (AUC = 0.73, 95% CI, 0.55–0.92), and then KTS (AUC = 0.65, 95% CI, 0.47–0.84). Similarly, for facility-based mortality, TEWS (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI, 0.79–0.98) had greater accuracy than RTS (AUC = 0.76, 95% CI, 0.61–0.91) and KTS (AUC = 0.68, 95% CI, 0.53–0.83). On pairwise comparisons, RTS had greater prognostic accuracy than KTS for 14-day mortality (P = 0.011) and TEWS had greater accuracy than KTS for overall (P = 0.007) mortality. However, TEWS and RTS accuracy were not significantly different for 14-day mortality (P = 0.864) or facility-based mortality (P = 0.101).Conclusion: In this cohort of emergently injured patients in Rwanda, the TEWS demonstrated the greatest accuracy for predicting mortality outcomes, with no significant discriminatory benefit found in the use of the trauma-specific RTS or KTS instruments, suggesting that the TEWS is the most clinically useful approach in the setting studied and likely in other similar ED environments.

Emergency Department consultation for non-traumatic abdominal pain is one of the common reasons for presentation; accounting for 5.76–20 % of all Emergency Department consultations. Research about non-traumatic abdominal pain is limited in Rwanda and East Africa. This study aims to understand the clinical profile and outcomes of non-traumatic abdominal pain at the largest tertiary hospital in Rwanda. A prospective cohort study of patients presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain was undertaken. During the 5-month study, two hundred sixty-one patients were enrolled in the study. The mean age was 39.7 years and male patients accounted for 57.5 % of the cohort. Nearly half of the cohort were triaged as a high priority (11.1 % red, 31.8 % orange), and 42.9 % were hemodynamically unstable at or shortly after presentation. More than half of the patients (57 %) had surgical conditions, including 40.2 % who underwent surgery and 17.6 % who were treated conservatively. The most common diagnoses were intestinal obstruction (25.7 % of all cases) and hollow viscus perforation (18.8 %). Mortality was 11.1 %, and the mean hospital length of stay was 9.1 days. Predicting factors for death outcome (p-value<0.05) were advanced age, altered mental status, jaundice at presentation, peritonitis, known malignancy, and acute kidney injury Abdominal pain is a common presenting problem, accounting for approximately 1 in 10 patients presenting to a tertiary care centre in Rwanda, with 2 in 5 patients requiring operative interventions. Identification of potential risk factors for mortality requires a multidisciplinary approach to decrease mortality and morbidity.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat associated with high morbidity and mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Inappropriate use of antimicrobials is one of the major drivers of the AMR pandemic. This study aims to evaluate the rate and quality of antimicrobial prescription and use at the University Teaching Hospital of Kigali, a tertiary referral and teaching hospital. A point prevalence survey (PPS) of antimicrobial prescription was conducted using the Global PPS tool, including the healthcare-acquired infections (HAI)-module. On the day of PPS, 39.3% (145/369) of the patients were prescribed at least one antimicrobial. Out of 259 prescribed antimicrobials, 232 (89.6%) were antibacterials of which 151 (65.1%) belonged to the Watch-group of the WHO AWaRe classification. Top three antibiotics prescribed were cefotaxime (87; 37.5%), parenteral metronidazole (31; 13.4%); and meropenem (23; 9.9%). Stop/review of the prescribed antimicrobials was documented in 27/259 prescriptions (10.4%). Surgical prophylaxis (SP) was prescribed for more than one day in 83.3% of 61. Samples for culture were sent for 27.1% (63/232) of all prescribed antibiotics. This PPS showed a high usage of Watch antibiotics, prolonged surgical prophylaxis and other poor-quality indicators. Therefore, there is an urgent need for antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global health concern. Previous research reveals that TB may have a seasonal peak during the spring and summer seasons in temperate climates; however, few studies have been conducted in tropical climates. This study evaluates the influence of seasonality on laboratory-confirmed TB diagnosis in Rwanda, a tropical country with two rainy and two dry seasons. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed at the University Teaching Hospital-Kigali (CHUK). From January 2016 to December 2017, 2717 CHUK patients with TB laboratory data were included. Data abstracted included patient demographics, season, HIV status, and TB laboratory results (microscopy, GeneXpert, culture). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression (adjusted for age, gender, and HIV status) analyses were performed to assess the association between season and laboratory-confirmed TB diagnoses. Results: Patients presenting during rainy season periods had a lower odds of laboratory-confirmed TB diagnosis compared to the dry season (aOR=0.78, 95% CI 0.63–0.97, p=0.026) when controlling for age group, gender, and HIV status. Males, adults, and people living with HIV were more likely to have laboratory-confirmed TB diagnosis. On average, more people were tested for TB during the rainy season per month compared to the dry season (120.3 vs. 103.3), although this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In Rwanda, laboratory-confirmed TB case detection shows a seasonal variation with patients having higher odds of TB diagnosis occurring in the dry season. Further research is required to further elucidate this relationship and to delineate the mechanism of season influence on TB diagnosis.